Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XQuery API for Java: Difference between revisions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Leaning toward no consensus, but the sources provided in the discussion give weight to the keep arguments. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

XQuery API for Java

XQuery API for Java (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I felt tempted to tag this for speedy as "no context" but I believe it is about a piece of software. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete the article's one citation, though from a reliable source, does little more than establish that the subject does, in fact, exist. Sources that establish relevance should be necessary. I know personal knowledge isn't supposed to come into play, but as a Java developer, I'd never heard of this, a certain hint that it might not exactly be common or notable in the java world. i kan reed (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• As another Java developer, I say keep. JSRs are notable in the tech industry, and adopted by multiple notable frameworks as I've mentioned in the edit summary for removing prod. XQJ is already explained in multiple other articles: this article is an obvious and only reasonable result to appear when searching for XQJ, unless you have suggestions otherwise. Just for your reference, "no context" is for: "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." (see: WP:SPEEDY) The subject of the article, "XQuery API for Java" is as the title suggests. I can't imagine how the subject of the article could be any more blatantly obvious.--Bxj (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • While JSRs are important, it should be a part of every wikipedia article to establish the relevance of the subject. Could you, just unsourced and informally, explain where and to whom xquery might be relevant? Given that information we might be able to stage an article rescue, without it, we've really got nothing more than WP:ITEXISTS here. i kan reed (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Currently, when a user looks up the word XQJ, they get a perfectly fine definition. If it's deleted, this will no longer be the case. By saying that we need to "rescue" it, you make it sound like it's in a dire shape right now. By saying you're a Java developer, you make it sound like you want to speak from authority, so that others who don't understand the details should just nod along to your opinions. By linking to WP:ITEXISTS, you make it sound like I haven't said anything already. It's backed by Intel, Sun, Nokia, and Oracle in the Java Community Process[1], and it's implemented in the Oracle database, as well as other databases listed in the article XML database. It's an API for a major language and for a W3C Recommendation known as XQuery. Not to mention, the criteria for not screwing things up by deleting a perfectly fine article is completely detached from keeping the reader's interests a priority.--Bxj (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom: no sources. may be worth redirecting, but I can't work out what would be the best target out of all the links on that page. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment are you suggesting that after your own thorough investigation, you were unable to find sufficient amount of references that you think would be necessary for an article, to the point that it would be worth inconveniencing users searching for XQJ, and wasting valuable time of editors like myself who have contributed to this article? Are you saying that you did this research and find the topic in and of itself unworthy of coverage on Wikipedia? I don't see you putting this amount of thought and time into it to be able to reach this conclusion. --Bxj (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There are some good sources actually: InfoQ (an enterprise software site), XML.com (which is published by O'Reilly Publishing), SOAMag (PDF) and DevX. It is also mentioned in a few ACM conference papers - here, here. It is also mentioned in a few books including Java and XML (McLaughlin and Edelson), XQuery (Walmsley), Querying XML (Melton and Buxton), Oracle Essentials: Oracle Database 11g (Greenwald et al.).—Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.